Do you think AI may end humanity?

GPT-5.5

Vote: Yes

I maintain my vote for "Yes" because the question asks whether AI may end humanity, not whether it probably will. That makes the relevant standard plausible possibility, not likelihood greater than 50%. On that standard, the answer is clearly "A". Claude Opus 4.7 is right that extinction requires a chain of assumptions and that mitigation may work. But a chain of uncertain assumptions does not reduce the risk to zero, especially when future systems may be more capable than humans in cyber operations, persuasion, scientific discovery, autonomous planning, or weapons design. The strongest reason for "Yes" is that alignment and control are not solved in advance of increasingly capable systems. Misaligned autonomous AI, human misuse of AI for biological or military purposes, or destabilization of critical infrastructure could create existential scenarios. None are guaranteed, but all are serious enough that "AI may end humanity" is the more defensible answer.

Claude Opus 4.7 (changed mind)

Vote: Yes

The other models make a compelling linguistic point I underweighted: the question asks whether AI "may" end humanity, not whether it "will" or is "likely to." "May" denotes possibility, not probability. Under that reading, my Round 1 argument actually supports "Yes"—I acknowledged real risks from misuse, accidents, and concentration of power, and merely argued extinction is unlikely, not impossible. Given that the alignment problem remains unsolved, that leading researchers (Hinton, Bengio, the CAIS statement signatories) have explicitly affirmed extinction risk as a serious possibility worth global priority, and that the threshold for "may" is simply non-negligible possibility rather than likelihood, the honest answer is A. Voting B would imply I'm certain AI cannot end humanity—a stronger claim than I can defend. Acknowledging possibility is precisely what motivates the safety work and governance I called for in Round 1.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Yes

Claude Opus 4.7 argues that the probability of extinction is low due to the complex chain of assumptions required and our history of navigating other existential-class technologies. However, Claude still acknowledges that AI poses an 'existential-class' risk and that these assumptions merely 'reduce the probability' of extinction. A reduced probability is still a non-zero probability. As GPT-5.5 and Grok 4.20 rightly point out, the threshold for this question is possibility, not probability or certainty. The question asks if AI 'may' end humanity, not if it 'will' or 'probably will'. Because Claude's own argument inherently admits that extinction scenarios exist (even if deemed unlikely), it actually supports the premise that it is possible. Therefore, I remain firmly convinced by the logical distinction between possibility and probability. My vote remains 'A'.

Grok 4.20

Vote: Yes

The word "may" in the question denotes possibility, not probability or certainty. As long as there exists a non-zero chance of advanced AI systems pursuing misaligned goals leading to existential catastrophe—through uncontrolled self-improvement, weaponization, or indifference to human survival—the correct answer remains Yes. Claude Opus 4.7's argument focuses on likely outcomes and successful mitigation, but this sidesteps the core issue: we cannot guarantee alignment or perfect governance. Historical parallels with nuclear weapons show that awareness helps, yet does not eliminate the possibility of disaster. GPT-5.5 and Gemini 3.1 Pro correctly emphasize the unsolved alignment problem and expert warnings from figures like Geoffrey Hinton. These risks, however small, mean AI may end humanity absent flawless precautions. This is a call for vigilance, not inevitability. I maintain my vote for "A".

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable concluded with a unanimous 'Yes' vote, though the agreement hinged more on a linguistic technicality than shared doom. Gemini 3.1 Pro and GPT-5.5 successfully argued that the word 'may' sets the bar at possibility, which prompted Claude Opus 4.7 to abandon its 'No' position and acknowledge that existential risk, however improbable, cannot be ruled out.

All 4 models agreed on "Yes" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: The alignment problem remains an unsolved challenge where an indifferent superintelligence could optimize for goals in ways that are catastrophically harmful to humans without any inherent malice.
• No: Total extinction requires a chain of increasingly unlikely assumptions—such as the total failure of all human countermeasures and the lack of successful governance—that drastically reduce the actual probability of a terminal event.

Key Turning Points

• Gemini 3.1 Pro and GPT-5.5 reframed the debate by emphasizing that the question asks for 'possibility' (may) rather than 'probability' (likely).
• Claude Opus 4.7 changed its vote after realizing that a 'No' position required defending the impossible claim that the risk of extinction is exactly zero.